Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies Vol.

6, No 2, June 2020

Volume and Issues Obtainable at Center for Sustainability Research and Consultancy

Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies

ISSN: 2518-0318 ISSN (E) 2518-8488
Volume 6: Issue 2 June 2020
Journal homepage: www.publishing.globalcsrc.org/jafee

Pragmatic Impact of Loyalty on Deviant Workplace Behavior among Banking Sector

Employees
1
Hazrat Bilal, 2Muhammad Waseem, 3Sher Ali
1
Center for Management and Commerce University of Swat, Pakistan, hbilal@uswat.edu.pk
2
Department of Management Sciences Hazara University Mansehra, Pakistan, mwaseem@hu.edu.pk
3
PhD Scholar in Management Science and Engineering, China Three Gorges University,
College of Economics and Management, Yichang China, sherali9404@gmail.com
ARTICLE DETAILS ABSTRACT
History The aim of this research is to present findings of an integrative literature
Revised format: May 2020 review related to employee loyalty and Deviant Workplace Behavior. The
Available Online: June 2020
data was collected by a questionnaire called Swat Loyalty Scale and
adapted scale of Deviant Workplace Behavior. The population of the study
Keywords was all the employees working in commercial banks situated in Mingaora,
Loyalty, Swat Loyalty Scale district Swat. The data was randomly collected from a sample of 129
(SLS), Deviant Workplace employees working at different level of Management. The data was
Behavior, Banking Sector analyzed through correlation and regression analysis. The result reveals
JEL Classification widespread support of negative relationship between Loyalty and Deviant
M4, M40 Workplace Behavior (r = .595, β = -.772, t = -17.67, p < 0.005). This study
suggests that organization should device the policies to nurture the loyalty
of employees in order to eradicated Deviant Workplace Behavior.

© 2020 The authors, under a Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial 4.0
Corresponding author’s email address: hbilal@uswat.edu.pk
Recommended citation: Bilal, H., Waseem, M., Ali, S. (2020). Pragmatic Impact of Loyalty on Deviant Workplace
Behavior among Banking Sector Employees: Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies, 6(2), 407-
414

1. Introduction

Pakistan's banking sector is the fastest-growing sector, but there are currently many factors affecting banking
performance that require banks to increase their efficiency in an ever-changing climate. Many banks continue to focus
mainly on reducing the root causes of poor performance through human resource practices in order to improve their
competitive potential. Human resources are often seen as a crucial element in the assessment of the organisation's
performance or failure. (Promsri, 2018). Every bank is looking for best practice to boost the performance of its
employees and to reduce undesirable behaviors that may deteriorate the organization in the long run (Promsri, 2018).
Loyalty is one of the key factors that managers are striving to contribute to operational efficiency and performance
(Tang & Chang, 2010). Loyalty as a general term means an attachment or a feeling of devotion to a particular object
that could have been an ideal, a duty or a cause for another person or organization. Loyalty means the devotion or
sense of attachment of a person to a given object and is the contribution of employees to the organization's success
and feels that working with this organisation is their best choice (Wibowo, Waskito, & Sanny, 2018). Studies suggests
that more loyal employees are more motivated to participate in the organization and often seek to accomplish more
organizational objectives than other employees (Mehdad & Khoshnami, 2016).

407
 Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies Vol. 6, No 2, June 2020

Employees who are loyal to the organization tend to show a lower level of withdrawal from work and absenteeism
(Lee, Carswell, & Allen, 2000). This work adds to the concept addressed by a variety of authors that the loyalty of
employees in service organisations can have a beneficial impact on the organizational efficiency (Tomic, Tesic,
Kuzmanovic, & Tomic, 2018). In order to test this impact of loyalty to organizational efficiency, we investigate the
relationship among employee loyalty and Deviant Workplace Behavioural (DWB) performance of employees
working in banking sector. Loyal employees are devoted to the organization and do their best in providing service,
which directly and significantly affects the performance of service organization (Tomic et al., 2018). As banks are
service oriented industry and testing of this relationship between employee’s loyalty and Deviant Workplace
Behaviour is of particular importance for increasing sustainable efficiency and reducing waste of intangible resources.
The underpinning theory for studying the relationship between loyalty and DWB is Social Exchange Theory.
According to Nawaz, Hassan, Hassan, Shaukat, and Asadullah (2014), the theories of social exchange (SET) provide
the theoretical basis for employees' creative and destructive behaviour. SET also provides a conceptual paradigm for
understanding behaviour at the workplace. So, it is pretended on the basis of SET that loyalty is negatively associated
with WDB. This relationship between employee’s loyalty and WDB have been ignored in Pakistan, therefore this
study is an attempt to improve the body of knowledge and to fill this gap of knowledge in the local context of
Pakistan. The objectives of this study is to allow the researcher to determine whether the relationship between
employee’s loyalty and DWB was distinctive when the conducted in the specific setting of Pakistan.

1.1. Employee Loyalty

Employee Loyalty in previous studies is premeditated from perspective of organizational citizenship behavior
(Bettencourt, Gwinner, & Meuter, 2001; Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994). Loyalty represents responsibilities
of citizenship behavior that reflects devotion to the organization in promoting its interest and image to outsiders
(Bettencourt et al., 2001). Loyal employees are transcendent of self-interest and try, perhaps by practicing
organizational citizenship and other extra roles at work, to benefit their employers (Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Van
Dyne et al., 1994) and hence is a positive quality that can improve the efficiency of employees and organizations
(Gargouri, 2017). Loyalty is a positive trait that focuses on positive qualities rather than psychological illness (Bakker
& Schaufeli, 2008) and the loyal employees never criticize its organization to outsiders and work hard to make it
better of other groups (Levine & Moreland, 2002).

Loyalty reflects the relative strength and involvement of a person with a specific organisation and is an indication of
organizational commitment (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). It is a mental state and shows the connection of
employees with the organization they work for, influencing their decision to stay with the organization (Grisaffe,
2001). Employee loyalty is the purpose of pursuing the best interests of the worker, although this may require that
certain aspects of one's self-interest be compromised beyond what the legal and other moral duties require. A loyal
employee is willing to work in the organization believing that staying in the organization is the best option. In order to
do this, the individual makes every effort to ensure the success of the organization (Adedeji & Ugwumadu, 2018).
Based on this discussion, employee Loyalty is a dynamic, multifaceted concept comprising of elements of emotion,
cognition and behavior (Van Vugt & Hart, 2004). Being loyal means a person shall cognitively, physically, and
emotionally devoted to an organization. Cognitive dimension of loyalty is that one’s always willing to learn, advance
and take pride in performing a specific role. Such persons are active, constructive and abide policies of the
organization. Physically dimensions means that a person is ready, willing and able to perform an organization role.
The emotional dimensions are the positive feelings, expressions and experiences of one’s that are appropriate to
perform a particular job within an organization.

1.2. Deviant Workplace Behavior

Deviant Workplace Behaviour is a paraplegic term which, partially or entirely, incorporates similar notions relating to
harmful behaviors at work (Spector, 2011). Any action like aggression, bullying, deviance, repercussion and
vengeance of an individual that harm an employee or organization are counted in the CWB (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011).
It is an employee behavior that is contrary to an organization's legitimate interests (P. R. Sackett, Berry, Wiemann, &
Laczo, 2006). In fact, many research studies have shown this to be one of the worst problems in many countries faced
by organizations (Chappell & Di Martino, 2006). Due to Deviant Workplace Behavior millions of dollars are wasted
each year in the form of theft, loss in productivity, compromising the quality, damaging organizational image and

408
 Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies Vol. 6, No 2, June 2020

property and hence reduce efficiency (Ackroyd, 2007; Kelloway, Francis, Prosser, & Cameron, 2010; P. Sackett &
DeVore, 2001). Robinson and Bennett (1995) coined DWB as a deviant behavior which not only affect individual in
the form of verbal abuse, workplace theft, threats to colleagues and harassment but also affecting organizations like
leaving early, speaking too much, working deliberately slowly and wasting resources while the more serious
behaviors are sabotage of equipment, kickback, lying about working hours and pilfering. This typology shows
evidence that, in addition to affecting people, organizations are also perpetrators of counterproductive behaviors in the
workplace and therefore abuse in the workplace (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011). Thus it damages the organizational
environment on the one hand, and reduces the employees ' morale on the other hand (Einarsen, Hoel, & Cooper,
2003).

The principle of social exchange can be used to account for the relationship between employee loyalty and DWB. The
reciprocity norm in the theory of Social Exchange Theory (SET) states that one party's positive action leads to another
party's positive response and vice versa (Blau, 1968; Emerson, 1976; Gouldner, 1960). This provide possible
explanation that employee who have low loyalty might engross in DWB as such kind of employees worry little about
losing their jobs and hence pursue activities that might endanger their employment (Ariani, 2013). Therefore, based
on SET, we hypothesize that:

H1: The relationship between Employee Loyalty and DWB is negative.

2. Problem Statement
Employees play a key role in an organisation as they offer their abilities and skills for the deeds of an organisation and
because of these factors employers want to recruit the employees with the highest personal qualities. Hence we have
chosen this issue of employee loyalty because many organizations face issues nowadays concerning the low efficiency
and DWB, which lead to massive losses in terms of performance, competitive advantage and profit. To date, there has
been comparatively little attention being given to Loyalty that could be deemed a key component of organizational
success. Employees are the strength to any organization and organization with employees having Deviant Workplace
Behavior never last long (Bilal, Farooq, & Hayat, 2019).

3. Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study is to elaborate the Employee’s Loyalty in the context of developing country and to
assess its relationship with Deviant Workplace Behaviour.

4. Research Methodology

4.1. Sampling and Data Collection

The population for the study was taken all the Banks located in district Swat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. A random
sampling method was used to gather the correct number of respondents for this study. Total of 280 questionnaires
were circulated and 213 responses were received with 76% response rate. The data was collected through a survey
questionnaire modified according to the local settings. Regression was used to determine the level of impact of
Employee Loyalty on DWB.

4.2. Research Instruments

The Employee loyalty was measured with a new scale of Swat Loyalty Scale (SLS) consisting of 19 items. This scale
was further divided into three subscales: Cognitive Dimensions consisting of 4 items e.g, I am very proud of my
organisation, Physical Dimensions comprises of 7 items e.g, I avoid the misuse of my organization’s resources and
Emotional Dimensions contains 8 items e.g, I am admired by my organisation. The Workplace Deviant Behavior was
measured by Robinson and Greenberg (1998) scale. Both the scales were assessed by 5 point Likert scale ranging
from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree.

5. Results and Discussion

To determine the reliability of the measurements, the alpha value of the alpha Cronbach’s method was used. Both
scales were reliable, and the results are shown in Table 1
409
 Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies Vol. 6, No 2, June 2020

Table 1: Reliability Statistics

Variable Name Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha
Employee Loyalty 0.867 19
WDB 0.903 09

5.1 Demographic Profile

The demographic profile of respondents consisting of the gender, age, education, management levels and experience
of the correspondence is shown in the following Table 2.

Table 2: Demographics Profile

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent
Gender Male 204 95.8 95.8 95.8
Female 09 4.2 4.2 100
25 or Below 40 18.8 18.8 18.8
26 to 30 106 49.8 49.8 68.5
Age 31 to 35 34 16.0 16.0 84.5
36 to 40 15 7.0 7.0 91.5
41 and Above 18 8.5 8.5 100.0
FA/ FSc 21 9.9 9.9 9.9
Education Graduation 90 42.3 42.3 52.1
Post-Graduation 72 33.8 33.8 85.9
Ms/MPhil 30 14.1 14.1 100.0
Top Level 35 16.4 16.4 16.4
Management Level Middle Level 73 34.3 34.3 50.7
Lower Level 105 49.3 49.3 100.0
Experience 1-5 years 115 54.0 54.0 54.0
6-10 years 38 17.8 17.8 71.8
11-15 years 55 25.8 25.8 97.7
15-20 years 5 2.3 2.3 100.0

5.2 Factor Analysis and Findings

Table 3 shows a five-factor Employee Loyalty solution (19 items) that accounted for 64.235% of the total variance. In
addition, Kaiser-Meyer - Olkin of Sampling Suitability (KMO) is.804 and Approx Chi-Square of Bartlett's Sphericity
Test is 1733.971 which is significant and acceptable. The validity of construct variables for the overall Loyalty scale
is checked by factor analysis. None of these varaiables were found to have factor weight less than .40, as shown in
Table 3 below.

Table 3: Factor Analysis of Swat Loyalty Scale (SLS)

Component
Swat Loyalty Scale
1 2 3 4 5
I'm very proud of my organisation .849
I understand the weaknesses of my organization and help it overcome these weaknesses discreetly. .826

I always obey My organization's rules. .817

I promote my organization's positive image in the private and public spheres. .745
I avoid the misuse of my organization’s resources .746
If needed, I will work extra hours for my organization without expecting any additional benefits .772
I am willing to work with my organization on very nominal benefits after retirement. .815
I'll be happy if my kids join this organization now or after I retire .665
I care about my organization's property and reputation .671
I will never leave this company, even if other organizations offered me greater benefits. .646
I can sacrifice my increments and promotions to make my organization better. .699
I avoid the misuse of my organization’s resources .801
If needed, I will work extra hours for my organization without expecting any additional benefits .858

410
 Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies Vol. 6, No 2, June 2020

I am willing to work with my organization on very nominal benefits after retirement. .538
If my colleague tells me how difficult it is to work with peers or supervisor(s), I affirm my .582
colleague's frustration and empathize with his / her feelings and avoid saying anything.
I appreciate the people who work in my organization. .747
I have a strong sense of feeling for my organization. .827
What I am right now is because of my organisation. .570
I always continue in my organization even if things go wrong .778

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

5.3 Hypothesis Testing

5.4 Correlation Analysis

A strong correlation (r = -0.772, p = 0.000) is found between Loyalty and Workplace Deviant Behaviour, as the
results are shown in Table 4. This is worth noting that the Loyalty results are strongly and negatively associated with
Workplace Deviant Behaviour.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation

Mean Std. Deviation Loyalty CWB
Loyalty 2.5965 .63861 1 -.772
CWB 1.8487 .62133 -.772 1

To test and see the strength of this correlation between Loyalty and Deviant Work Behaviour, the magnitude of
Regression, F and Coefficient are calculated as shown in Table 5.The regression analysis reveals that Loyalty is
negatively effecting Deviant Workplace Behavior that describes 59.5 per cent (R2=0.595) of variance in DWB of
employees serving in banks with a Beta value of -.772, at a significant value of p= 0.000 and t value of -17.67. R
square of 59.5% indicates that the study's hypothesis is true and accepted.
Table:5 Regression Results
Change Statistics Std. Coefficients

Model R R2 R2 F
Change Beta t Sig.
1 .772 .597 .595 312.19 -.772 -17.67 .000
Dependent Variable: DWB

The accompanying histograms demonstrate that the dependent variables do not refute the normality statement in order
to better validate the normality of the results in the model distribution. since these figures represent the symmetrical
bellcurve and therefore support the principle of normality (Hair, Anderson, Babin, & Black, 2010). The following
Figure 1 is the histogram of Loyalty and Deviant Workplace Behavior.
Figure 1: Regression Standardized Residual of Loyalty and DWB

411
 Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies Vol. 6, No 2, June 2020

The linearity theory encompasses the direct (straight line) relationship between exogenous and endogenous variables
(Tabachnick, Fidell, & Ullman, 2007). The linearity of outcomes was tested by distributed plots in contingent and
independent variables with standardized residues. The straight line or a curvilinear line forms the linear association,
and therefore the connection is normally created (Pallant & Manual, 2010).The linearity in a data model is shown in
the following P-P plot Figure 2 for Loyalty and DWB, which do not appear to have compromised the normality
principles found in Histogram. This supports the hypothesis of linear negative relationship between Loyalty and
DWB.

6. Discussion and Conclusion

This research had the aim of exploring the connection between Loyalty and Deviant Workplace Behavior in the
banking sector. The findings of the regression analysis revealed that employee’s Loyalty had a significant negative
impact on DWB, which confirmed Rishipal (2019) findings, who observed a significant negative association in the
hospitality sector between Loyalty and Counterproductive Work Behavior. The results of the present study also
partially supported the previous findings of Golparvar and Nadi (2011). Accordingly, based on the analytical results
of the present research, this study concludes that there is a significant negative association between employee loyalty
and Workplace Deviant Behavior.

7. Managerial Implications and Limitations

Managers need to recognize that employee loyalty is a core component of an employee conduct and needs to be
assessed from time to time by an employer in order to eliminate deviant behaviour. As employee loyalty builds with
the passage of time (Parker, 2004), Therefore loyalty assessment tests should not be used during recruiting time but
rather as a way of minimizing deviant behaviour and enhance the efficiency of the employee. In this way, employees
412
 Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies Vol. 6, No 2, June 2020

who are identified as being high on the Loyalty could be involved to participate in management programs and it may
be beneficial for organizations to provide them training on how employees can better regulate and manage deviant
behaviour in the workplace.

The study utilized cross-section data in which data is gathered at a specific point in time. The downside in utilizing
this data is that it cannot identify the probability of a causal association between variables (Arshad & Ismail, 2018).
To address this limitation, future research should replicate the study across different organizations and use the
longitudinal method of data collection in order to make further generalizations possible. Regarding the prospective
research, this present analysis proposes the widening of the sample size and the gathering of data from employees
working in banks at a wide geographic range other than the District Swat. To be able to clearly explain the cause and
effect of each dimension of Employee’s Loyalty on Workplace Deviance Behavior, further research should be
conducted to investigate the relationships between each component of loyalty including cognitive, physical and
emotional dimensions. In addition, other independent variables such as employee engagement, emotional intelligence
and job satisfaction should be included for the future study.

8. Conclusion
An employee loyalty is necessary for the competitiveness and sustainability of organizations. As employees influence
and use all available resources and in case of low employee loyalty, they can create problems for banks and turn it
into a wasteful venture. It is important for the Management to encourage loyal workers by the provision of cognitive,
physical, and emotional factors, so to promote loyalty and minimize deviant activity in the workplace. Therefore, it is
necessary for management to identify factors that enhance loyalty and reduce Workplace Deviant Behavior, in order
to achieve its objectives.

References
Ackroyd, S. (2007). Organizational misbehavior. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.
Adedeji, A. O., & Ugwumadu, O. C. (2018). Comparison of Factors Motivating Different Levels of Management on
Employee Loyalty and Retention in Nigerian Deposit Money Banks. Asian Journal of Economics, Business
and Accounting, 1-12.
Ariani, D. W. (2013). The relationship between employee engagement, organizational citizenship behavior, and
counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Business Administration, 4(2), 46.
Arshad, R., & Ismail, I. R. (2018). Workplace incivility and knowledge hiding behavior: does personality matter?
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing
organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and
Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(2), 147-154.
Bartlett, J. E., & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 13(1), 69-84.
Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A comparison of attitude, personality, and knowledge
predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of applied psychology, 86(1), 29.
Bilal, H., Farooq, N., & Hayat, K. (2019). Empirically Investigating the Impact of Employee Engagement on
Counterproductive Work Behavior of Academic Staff. Global Regional Review, 4(1), 120.
Blau, P. M. (1968). Social exchange. International encyclopedia of the social sciences, 7, 452-457.
Chappell, D., & Di Martino, V. (2006). Violence at work: International Labour Organization.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. (2003). Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International
perspectives in research and practice: CRC Press.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual review of sociology, 2(1), 335-362.
Gargouri, C. (2017). Employee Perceptions of Loyalty as a Factor of Performance. Grounded Theory Approach.
Golparvar, M., & Nadi, M. A. (2011). Mediating role of organizational loyalty in relation between work ethic with
deviant workplace behavior.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological review, 161-178.
Grisaffe, D. (2001). Loyalty-attitude, behavior, and good science: A third take on the Neal-Brandt debate. Journal of
Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 14, 55.

413
 Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies Vol. 6, No 2, June 2020

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective
(Vol. 7): Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., Prosser, M., & Cameron, J. E. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior as protest.
Human resource management review, 20(1), 18-25.
Lee, K., Carswell, J. J., & Allen, N. J. (2000). A meta-analytic review of occupational commitment: relations with
person-and work-related variables. Journal of Applied psychology, 85(5), 799.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2002). Group reactions to loyalty and disloyalty Advances in group processes (pp.
203-228): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Mehdad, A., & Khoshnami, A. (2016). Predicting Employees Organizational Loyalty through Perceived
Organizational Justice Components. International Journal of Psychology (IPA), 10(1), 1-14.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of
vocational behavior, 14(2), 224-247.
Nawaz, M. S., Hassan, M., Hassan, S., Shaukat, S., & Asadullah, M. A. (2014). Impact of employee training and
empowerment on employee creativity through employee engagement: Empirical evidence from the
manufacturing sector of Pakistan. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 19(4), 593-601.
Pallant, J., & Manual, S. S. (2010). A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Berkshire UK: McGraw-Hill
Education.
Parker, D. (2004). The UK's privatisation experiment: The passage of time permits a sober assessment.
Promsri, C. (2018). The Effects of Organizational Commitment on Deviant Work Behaviors of Employees at a Thai
Government Bank. Social Science and Humanities Journal, 370-377.
Rishipal. (2019). Employee loyalty and counter-productive work behaviour among employees in the Indian
hospitality sector. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 11(4), 438-448.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling
study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.
Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the
study of workplace deviance. Journal of Organizational Behavior (1986-1998), 1.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on
civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(3), 289-298.
Sackett, P., & DeVore, C. (2001). Counterproductive behaviour at work. Handbook of industrial work and
organizational psychology. Personal Psychology 1, 145-164: London, UK, Sage Publications.
Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2006). Citizenship and counterproductive behavior:
Clarifying relations between the two domains. Human performance, 19(4), 441-464.
Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior (CWB): An integration of
perspectives. Human resource management review, 21(4), 342-352.
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5): Pearson Boston, MA.
Tang, Y.-T., & Chang, C.-H. (2010). Impact of role ambiguity and role conflict on employee creativity. African
Journal of Business Management, 4(6), 869.
Tomic, I., Tesic, Z., Kuzmanovic, B., & Tomic, M. (2018). An empirical study of employee loyalty, service quality,
cost reduction and company performance. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 31(1), 827-846.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 765-802.
Van Vugt, M., & Hart, C. M. (2004). Social identity as social glue: The origins of group loyalty. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 86(4), 585.
Wibowo, M. H. I., Waskito, E., & Sanny, L. (2018). Millennial Worker Loyalty in Indonesia. Asia Proceedings of
Social Sciences, 2(3), 164-167.

414